Are you one of those Americans that create your own "media bubble"? Link enclosed
I think it's sad so many conservatives don't understand the meaning of the words "fair" and "balanced".
Not less you can do so from sites like Pornhub and Youporn.
Only two? That's a pretty narrow view. It's funny how some think presenting two sides of an issue is all that's needed for a full picture.
And global warming is a great example. There are AT LEAST three "sides": (1) it's happening and caused by humans, (2) it's happening but natural and unavoidable, (3) it isn't happening. And further nuance/variation within some of those.
No; the point was exactly what I said: the article points to exactly one source that seems to distinguish between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives love it, liberals hate it. As for liberals' favored source, it depends on the liberal.
Five, actually. We HOPE global warming is happening - because when the Holocene interglacial finally comes to an end, we'll all be huddled around the fire wishing for the good old days when you didn't have to melt your water first to drink it.
No. I've used sources from CNN to InfoWars.
people who don't talk much about politics aren't speaking up enough. Polarization is their fault! ;)
Fox is by far the most fair and balanced. It's just sad so many liberals rely on a comedy network for so much of their worldview.
Oh, I see. Fox News is fair and balanced in that it presents the four sides of global warming that Scotty mentioned. Makes sense.
Wait, you mean I'm not going to die of Ebola or ISIS before years end?
An outside perspective if the report source is too biased for you.
Actually there are four sides to global warming:
1. It's not happening.
2. It's not happening.
3. It's not happening.
4. It's not happening.
Yeah I love how liberals watch nothing but Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert all day and think that's "news". Oh well, someone's gotta' be a low information voter!
It sounds like what they're calling "consistent liberals" have a lot more variety in their news sources, though. It seems that the real separator is whether one trusts Fox or not. Interesting. Also interesting note about the politically aligned
Hahaha I meant an example of an interview you were talking about, not a "let's pat ourselves on the back" clip. I looked up the study in question, and it suggests that the reason for the disparity is because McCain went into attack mode after the
friends. I have to wonder if part of that is simply because most people don't talk about politics, though. That could lead to making assumptions about the makeup of your friends that isn't actually all that accurate. Maybe the problem is that the
Nope, I've just proven you wrong (again). My job here is done.
I don't think so, because I deliberately look for independent reports and try to go to the source. These two links, for example, referred to the same Pew report. If they were reported differently, I'd find read the report myself.
But then, despite being very socially liberal, I am not a "consistent" liberal. On some issues I'm off the scale to the right.
I think it's sad so many liberals consider the mainstream press "objective" so as to make Fox appear "biased". Unlike the former, the latter tells BOTH sides to a story. And yes, there are two sides to every story.
Scotty, if they're using kooks to present an opposing viewpoint, that isn't fair and balanced at all. That's called a straw man argument. It's considered a logical fallacy. Maybe they should change the slogan to "fallacious and biased" then.
Okay, we're weeks away from the big gaming season. Please tell me you'll be buying at least one of the following:
Master Chief Collection
AC Unity / AC Rogue
Far Cry 4
Also, Scotty, it's funny how you simply saw the word "Fox" and knee-jerked into an argument. You'll note I actually didn't disparage Fox in my comment.
Got a short clip that demonstrates this "mind-numbing" balance? I have seen some Fox hosts who do a decent job of balancing discussions. Others are clearly in over their heads. So it's possible for x random discussion but it isn't accurate as a
broad descriptor based on what I've seen.
Admittedly I don't watch ANY news regularly. I get my news from an assortment of online news aggregators supplemented by Google, Twitter, and word of mouth. Also the Sirius politics channel on my commute and
OCCASIONALLY NPR, but I'll admit I find a lot of their programming overly dry. What can I say, I'm part of the problem.
And you said, "whether one trusts Fox or not." Why not whether you trust NPR or not? Clearly the implication is you don't trust Fox.
Fact-only reporting also presumes an intelligent, thoughtful, and reasoning public. Round education is necessary to achieve this.
Unity. Probably Rogue as well but I may wait for a sale. And Dragon Age: Inquisition. GOD I've been waiting a long time for that game.
FOX News and The Blaze. All the news I need. No need to watch all those damn socialists.
I refuse to watch any news and enjoy coming to my own conclusions.
No. I use a variety of left and right sources. The right sources report on stuff that left ones never touch. The left sources give a balance to the right ones on topics they do actually report on.
economy tanked, trying to draw focus away from the economic numbers, which the *public* viewed negatively. So one could argue that the supposedly equitable negative coverage actually is evidence that Fox *isn't* balanced. It's always important to
keep context in mind. For instance, if a politician does something horrible, like defrauding investors in a company, and the politician's opponent is pretty unremarkable, it would arguably show *more* bias to report an equal number of negative things
about the two of them, since one candidate is probably simply a worse person.
Btw I'm not saying McCain is a bad person or worse person than Obama; I'm just saying that the isolated variable they're talking about in the clip doesn't actually show that they are "fair and balanced."
"40% vs. 40%"
Truth hurts, huh?
Nope. Nothing more to say?
Sadly no, Fox goes out of its way to be fair and balanced on this issue and consistently features pro-global warming kooks which drives me nuts because everyone knows it's a bogus hoax.
It's always so disappointing when you don't engage. Ah well.
"Kook" is my characterization (and you know that). They're accredited scientists and all. Fox is mind numbingly balanced on this issue.
Yes, only two. For example, either global warming is happening or it's not. It's not and Fox presents that side in addition to the pro-hoax side.
News reporting should focus on facts, not "analysis" that is thinly vailed bias. Facts are dry and not always interesting, thus don't "sell." The current base motivation of all major media, to make money - to inform being secondary.